Where do moral laws come from?

[Iceweasel]

Before space and time were created the laws of nature were already in place. The potential for all realities existed before space and time existed because those laws of nature were in place before space and time. Everything which has unfolded since space and time were created occurred because of the laws of nature. Moral Laws existed before beings that know and create existed. Moral Laws were waiting in time for beings that now and create to catch up to them, thus realizing its potential and fulfilling their role in progressing our conscience and consciousness. So where did the moral laws come from? They came from God who is existence itself; who s reality itself.

Where did you come up with all that? Did you form your own religion or cobble pieces together from others?

Laws come from man, they differ from state to state, country from country.

I see. So slavery can be moral if a society decides it it moral?

Some did and do consider it moral so no, you don't see.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes and no. Morality is a standard of conduct which is the highest possible standard. When one deviates from that standard predictable surprises will eventually occur thus proving why the standard existed in the first place.

That's called circular reasoning. You are deciding on what the standard is and determining proof is met when that standard is met.

 

[there4eyeM]

The 'law of causality', 'order', 'justice', 'karma' and many other terms have been used by humans throughout time to describe this aspiration to impose names/nouns upon existence. We live something, experience something and have internal responses, feelings. These themselves are shaped by previous experiences, including socialization. As we navigate life, situations arise that affect us in ways that often resonate with our memories and consciousness. It is natural to try to fit patterns and 'sense' into this mandala of perception. They might even be accurate, at least some of the time. We may never know. We should come to understand our processes, however, and always be prepared to admit that, as certain as we would like to be of 'principles', they are concepts, part of humans and human reasoning, thus, subjective.

 

[BreezeWood]

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil.

.

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

that simply is not true, all beings have the same sense as good and evil.

because the preponderance of evil in Garden Earth is humanity is not a special knowledge but an unwelcome and overused frailty.

Saying it is so does not make it so.

.

Saying it is so does not make it so.

you obviously have no moral bearings.

If it gives you comfort, I am more than happy for you to see me that way.

.

If it gives you comfort, I am more than happy for you to see me that way.

you diverge again without taking responsibility for your errant statement -


bing: "Only humans have knowledge of good and evil".

 

[BreezeWood]

I don't believe so. As a rule, most girls of 13 to 14 are not emotionally mature enough to make such commitments. Men who take advantage of them are doing so for their own selfish reasons. I don't consider this to be the highest possible standard of conduct.

Again, I told you that you would come back at me with this very argument! You are making a subjective moral decision based on your perception. It's not some universal truth the whole of mankind accepts. You may WISH it were, but it's simply NOT. That's the crux of the debate here.

You say it yourself... "[YOU] don't consider it to be the highest possible standard of conduct!" That's YOUR opinion based on YOUR perspective and perceptions... not a universal TRUTH. You are simply attempting to "ordain" your moralistic beliefs as some kind of universal truth as if something endowed you with this ability. I assure you, it did not. You speak for YOURSELF... as do I, as does every individual.

The universal standard is not taking advantage of others for personal gain.

Nature is all about taking advantage of the weak for personal gain. Please try again.

.

Nature is all about taking advantage of the weak for personal gain. Please try again.

you've converted to 4th century christianity ? - too bad.

 

[rightwinger]

Moral laws do not come from god

They were devised by man in the name of god

 

[Mudda]

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

I've had dogs my whole life

Yes, they do understand that some other dogs (or people) are good or evil

They are either afraid of them or not, it's a survival instinct because in the wild, a small injury can mean death. It has nothing to do with morally good or evil.

My dogs have some people or dogs that they like, some that they are indifferent to or some that they despise. They are able to sense who they are friends with and who they should consider a threat.

Dogs are useless and dumb, like their owner.

 

[Mudda]

I don't believe so. As a rule, most girls of 13 to 14 are not emotionally mature enough to make such commitments. Men who take advantage of them are doing so for their own selfish reasons. I don't consider this to be the highest possible standard of conduct.

Again, I told you that you would come back at me with this very argument! You are making a subjective moral decision based on your perception. It's not some universal truth the whole of mankind accepts. You may WISH it were, but it's simply NOT. That's the crux of the debate here.

You say it yourself... "[YOU] don't consider it to be the highest possible standard of conduct!" That's YOUR opinion based on YOUR perspective and perceptions... not a universal TRUTH. You are simply attempting to "ordain" your moralistic beliefs as some kind of universal truth as if something endowed you with this ability. I assure you, it did not. You speak for YOURSELF... as do I, as does every individual.

The universal standard is not taking advantage of others for personal gain.

Nature is all about taking advantage of the weak for personal gain. Please try again.

.

Nature is all about taking advantage of the weak for personal gain. Please try again.

you've converted to 4th century christianity ? - too bad.

WTF are you talking about?

Nature is all about the strong hunting and eating the weaker. Even you should know that.

 

[BreezeWood]

I don't believe so. As a rule, most girls of 13 to 14 are not emotionally mature enough to make such commitments. Men who take advantage of them are doing so for their own selfish reasons. I don't consider this to be the highest possible standard of conduct.

Again, I told you that you would come back at me with this very argument! You are making a subjective moral decision based on your perception. It's not some universal truth the whole of mankind accepts. You may WISH it were, but it's simply NOT. That's the crux of the debate here.

You say it yourself... "[YOU] don't consider it to be the highest possible standard of conduct!" That's YOUR opinion based on YOUR perspective and perceptions... not a universal TRUTH. You are simply attempting to "ordain" your moralistic beliefs as some kind of universal truth as if something endowed you with this ability. I assure you, it did not. You speak for YOURSELF... as do I, as does every individual.

The universal standard is not taking advantage of others for personal gain.

Nature is all about taking advantage of the weak for personal gain. Please try again.

.

Nature is all about taking advantage of the weak for personal gain. Please try again.

you've converted to 4th century christianity ? - too bad.

WTF are you talking about?

Nature is all about the strong hunting and eating the weaker. Even you should know that.

.

Nature is all about the strong hunting and eating the weaker. Even you should know that.

the Almighty created a carnivorous Garden, something akin to the universe it resides within, however -

some have chosen a different path ... but how boring.

 

[ding]

You can not legislate morality!

Of course you can

Murder is not moral. We have laws against it
Stealing the property of others is not moral......We have laws against it
Assault and rape is not moral...We have laws against it

I agree, but that still does not make the people behave morally. I believe that is what he meant by you can't legislate morality. And you can't. The best you can do is write laws and punish people for breaking those laws. But that won't make them moral. They have to choose to do that. Conversely, you could write bad laws and people could choose to violate them because they are moral.

Society determines how its members must interact. Those who defy the dictates of society receive a punishment deemed appropriate. Those deemed by society to not be moral are separated by society.

Sure, and that has nothing to do with whether moral laws exist independently of society. The moral law is the highest standard which exists. Societies are free to lower that standard and suffer the consequences of deviating from that standard but that in no way negates the standard.

 

[ding]

There weren't any settlements. There were only tribes. The tribes were mostly family. You're jumping way ahead to a settlement... that's post-civilization. There is no evidence of any civilization existing without spirituality.

Now, neither of us knows for certain, the answer is elusive. But it's my theory that human spirituality must've preceded civilization or we would've found remnants of ancient civilizations devoid of spiritualism. And I can conjecture how this spiritual connection was something early man could use in forming trust relationships with others. Tribes suddenly grew into civilizations.

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

I've had dogs my whole life

Yes, they do understand that some other dogs (or people) are good or evil

No. they don't. Not like human beings do. They do not possess that level of consciousness.

 

[ding]

Before space and time were created the laws of nature were already in place. The potential for all realities existed before space and time existed because those laws of nature were in place before space and time. Everything which has unfolded since space and time were created occurred because of the laws of nature. Moral Laws existed before beings that know and create existed. Moral Laws were waiting in time for beings that now and create to catch up to them, thus realizing its potential and fulfilling their role in progressing our conscience and consciousness. So where did the moral laws come from? They came from God who is existence itself; who s reality itself.

Where did you come up with all that? Did you form your own religion or cobble pieces together from others?

Laws come from man, they differ from state to state, country from country.

I see. So slavery can be moral if a society decides it it moral?

Some did and do consider it moral so no, you don't see.

I see that what you are describing is moral relativism.

 

[ding]

Yes and no. Morality is a standard of conduct which is the highest possible standard. When one deviates from that standard predictable surprises will eventually occur thus proving why the standard existed in the first place.

That's called circular reasoning. You are deciding on what the standard is and determining proof is met when that standard is met.

Actually I am not. For any given thing you are free to submit a higher standard for consideration. And if it is indeed the highest possible standard you will have discovered the moral law.

 

[ding]

The 'law of causality', 'order', 'justice', 'karma' and many other terms have been used by humans throughout time to describe this aspiration to impose names/nouns upon existence. We live something, experience something and have internal responses, feelings. These themselves are shaped by previous experiences, including socialization. As we navigate life, situations arise that affect us in ways that often resonate with our memories and consciousness. It is natural to try to fit patterns and 'sense' into this mandala of perception. They might even be accurate, at least some of the time. We may never know. We should come to understand our processes, however, and always be prepared to admit that, as certain as we would like to be of 'principles', they are concepts, part of humans and human reasoning, thus, subjective.

Yes, and what I am discussing is the objective moral law which once discovered will be known to be true and unchanging despite the subjectivity of man.

 

[ding]

Moral laws do not come from god

They were devised by man in the name of god

They do if they are absolute and not relative.

 

[Iceweasel]

Before space and time were created the laws of nature were already in place. The potential for all realities existed before space and time existed because those laws of nature were in place before space and time. Everything which has unfolded since space and time were created occurred because of the laws of nature. Moral Laws existed before beings that know and create existed. Moral Laws were waiting in time for beings that now and create to catch up to them, thus realizing its potential and fulfilling their role in progressing our conscience and consciousness. So where did the moral laws come from? They came from God who is existence itself; who s reality itself.

Where did you come up with all that? Did you form your own religion or cobble pieces together from others?

Laws come from man, they differ from state to state, country from country.

I see. So slavery can be moral if a society decides it it moral?

Some did and do consider it moral so no, you don't see.

I see that what you are describing is moral relativism.

When isn't morality relative?

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes and no. Morality is a standard of conduct which is the highest possible standard. When one deviates from that standard predictable surprises will eventually occur thus proving why the standard existed in the first place.

That's called circular reasoning. You are deciding on what the standard is and determining proof is met when that standard is met.

Actually I am not. For any given thing you are free to submit a higher standard for consideration. And if it is indeed the highest possible standard you will have discovered the moral law.

That's circular because you are deciding what a higher standard is. If intercourse with a 12 year old when is it moral? 13? 16? 17? 21? And what is the higher standard?

 

[Iceweasel]

The 'law of causality', 'order', 'justice', 'karma' and many other terms have been used by humans throughout time to describe this aspiration to impose names/nouns upon existence. We live something, experience something and have internal responses, feelings. These themselves are shaped by previous experiences, including socialization. As we navigate life, situations arise that affect us in ways that often resonate with our memories and consciousness. It is natural to try to fit patterns and 'sense' into this mandala of perception. They might even be accurate, at least some of the time. We may never know. We should come to understand our processes, however, and always be prepared to admit that, as certain as we would like to be of 'principles', they are concepts, part of humans and human reasoning, thus, subjective.

Yes, and what I am discussing is the objective moral law which once discovered will be known to be true and unchanging despite the subjectivity of man.

There is no such thing as objective morality.

 

[edthecynic]

Where do moral laws come from?

A Right-winger's ass.

 

[rightwinger]

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

I've had dogs my whole life

Yes, they do understand that some other dogs (or people) are good or evil

No. they don't. Not like human beings do. They do not possess that level of consciousness.

They have a level of understanding of good and bad. They don't forget either
They do not have any consciousness of a God that will punish them if they are bad...namely because there isn't one
Dogs do understand actions that they do that are good or bad




.